DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of methods for organizing human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a control unit for “controlling data transmission”, obtain an “event”, and reduce the amount of data being transmitted. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data reduction step of the control unit does not change how the transport system operates; it just manages the data through generic network nodes. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims rely on generic network communication components for performing generic functions. No inventive step has been recited, it only states apply data reduction on a transport system. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant needs to tie the data reduction to a technical improvement of the transport system. The claims should point out why data reduction is needed or how data reduction is performed, since the why and the how is what differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art.
Claims 2-26 do not add any limitation that would turn the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
Claims 27-28 include similar functional limitations included in claims 2-26. The recited method is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, it is unclear what applicant mean by “an event” necessitating data transmission control. The claim must recite the boundaries of the trigger (event) for the reduction of data transmission.
Claim 2, an “external event” is too broad and extremely vague. The claim does not provide a clear boundary of the recited limitation.
Claim 3 suffers from similar issues. Vague and extremely broad limitation directed to “internal” events is recited.
Claim 4, what “event” is being obtained and how is an event obtained from a diagnostic controller?
Claim 5, if we take the limitations recited in independent claim 1, how does a power supply failure need data transmission control? And how would a power failure have anything to do with reducing data transmission?
Claim 6, is the reduction of data transmission related to the state of charge in the backup battery or the mere use of a backup battery instead of a primary power supply?
Claim 8, what is priority data? The claim is considered vague and indefinite as independent claim 1,
Claim 9, the claim does not clarify the limitation directed to a “specific priority”. Priority related to what?
Claim 10, what is a specific priority?
Claim 11, what priority information are you referring to? The claim does not specify what is being diagnosed and the relationship between a diagnosis and “priority data”.
Claim 12, what criteria for the interruption of data between downlink interfaces and uplink interfaces?
Claim 13, what do you mean by “the event by module basis”?
Claim 14, what is the criteria for the reduction?
Claim 17, what does the presence of anything have to do with a reduction of data transmission?
Claim 20, the claim does not clarify the referent to the term “event”.
Claim 21, it seems the claim is incomplete because the preamble is directed to a “communication system”, but the body of the claim does not recite anything but the transport system of claim 1. Where are the components that formed “the communication system”?
Claim 22 does not fix the issues of claim 21.
Claim 23, no clear “communication system” has been recited.
Claim 24, what do you mean by priorities? The term is too broad.
Claim 26, What are the elements of the transport system, since claim 21 has not provided any structural components of said “communication system”. It seems applicant is trying to claim an intended use for “the system” recited in claim 1.
Claims 27-28, similar issues as described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch et al (US Patent 7869376).
Claims 1-28 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112(b) for being vague and indefinite. Prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 1, 27, and 28, Busch et al teaches a communication system for a transport system comprising: a networking node system comprising nodes communicating information to a switch 112 from different modules, nodes communicating data from the switch 112 to a plurality of modules (see fig. 1), and data nodes connected to a plurality of nodes such as interfaces 114/116/118; and a control unit such as unit 302 or processors 304 which provides connectivity at a lower performance based on the operational state of the system such as severe physical network failures such as power failures or soft failures such as configuration errors (see col. 5 lines 33-49).
Without a clear description of what applicant means by an “event”, the scenarios described above could be considered “events” that required in adjustment in the communication between nodes and the control unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the configuration of a transport system described by Busch, since as described in col. 5 lines 41-49, modifications in communication between different modules is needed when a soft or severe failure is detected in order to be able to perform the necessary maintenance.
Claim 2, Busch describes in col. 5 lines 43-45 that a configuration error of external devices of the transport system is used to reduce data transmission.
Claims 3, 5, 7, Busch describes in col. 5 lines 41-43 the detection of internal issues such power failure is used to reduce data transmission.
Claim 4, Busch describes operational status module 238 to detect an issue with internal or external modules of the transport system (see fig. 2 and corresponding description).
Claims 6, since the claim does not describe any other power supply in the system besides the backup battery, Busch describes in col. 5 lines 41-49 that the status of the power supply is considered when reducing connectivity in the system.
Claims 8-10, Busch describes in col. 5 lines 8-24 a series of data storage units for controlling operation of the transport system. Without specifying what the priority data represent, Busch describes different data being stored and used by the system processors.
Claim 11, Busch describes in fig. and corresponding description, an operational status module 238 interacting with processors 232.
Claims 12-14 and 20, as described above in the rejection of claims 1-5, Busch describes interrupting communication between the different interfaces based on internal and external devices. The number of interfaces getting their communication reduced depends of the different number of interfaces in the transport system.
Claims 15-17, the specific type of connecting nodes depends on the type of transport system. Additionally, the claims do not specify what constitute detecting the presence of a passenger in relationship to the reduction of data transmission.
Claims 18-19, Busch describes the communication between the plurality of interfaces in communication application 236.
Claims 21-26, there is no difference between the limitations of these claims and claims 1-5. No other structural components of the “communication system” has been provided.
A more detailed rejection would be provided once the application is properly amended to correct the 35 USC 112(b) issues listed in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed in the attached PTO-892 describe different communication systems that include networking nodes that include uplink and downlinks interfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights